25-003352.pdf
Jamie Blumenthal, Petitioner V City Of Southfield, Respondent · 25-003352-TT
Text extracted from the reviewed PDF, organized by page. OCR and reading order may contain errors; confirm details in the PDF below.
Page 1
BE RECEIVED DEC 04 2025 STATE OF MICHIGAN "mH MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION Jamie Blumenthal Petitioner, MTT Docket No.: 25-003352 Parcel No.: 76-24-25-206-004 (Correct Parcel) Vs. City of Southfield, Respondent. Stephen Polter Justin Prybylski Polter Law Group Assessor, Southfield 2600 W Big Beaver, Ste L100 26000 Evergreen Rd. Troy, MI 48084 Southfield, MI 48076 248-213-6800 248-796-5240 Spolter@polterlaw.com iprybylski@cityofsouthfield.com PETITIONER’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS Petitioner, Jamie Blumenthal, through counsel, submits this Response opposing Respondent City of Southfield’s Motion to Dismiss. Respondent seeks dismissal solely on the basis that Petitioner’s original Small Claims petition referenced an incorrect parcel identification number differing by one digit from the correct parcel number. For the reasons set forth below, Respondent’s Motion should be denied, and this matter should proceed on the merits. I. INTRODUCTION Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss rests entirely on a minor clerical error in the Parcel Identification Number listed in Petitioner’s original filing. The correct parcel number is 76-24- 25-206-604, but the petition inadvertently listed 76-24-25-203-004. This error was purely
Page 2
IL STATEMENT OF FACTS 1. Petitioner timely filed a Small Claims petition challenging the assessment for the tax year at issue, as even Respondent, in its motion, concedes. 2. The petition clearly identified Petitioner by name and stated the basis for the assessment dispute. 3. Due to an inadvertent clerical mistake, the Parcel Identification Number was listed as 76- 24-25-203-004 instead of 76-24-25-206-004, differing by only one digit. 4. The City of Southfield was fully aware of the property owned by Petitioner and the subject of the assessment challenge, as the Petitioner owns only one parcel within the city under their name. 5. Respondent has alleged no prejudice, confusion, or inability to identify the correct parcel. 6. Respondent moves for dismissal solely based on this single-digit error in the P.LN, II. ARGUMENT A. The Petition Substantially Complied with MTT Filing Requirements Michigan jurisprudence distinguishes between “mandatory” requirements and “directory” or procedural requirements. Minor clerical defects—particularly those not affecting substantive rights—do not deprive the Tribunal of jurisdiction. The Tribunal has repeatedly recognized that substantial compliance is sufficient where the petition clearly identifies the taxpayer, the nature of the appeal, and the intended property. A one-digit error in the parcel number does not defeat substantial compliance, particularly where Respondent had no difficulty identifying the Petitioner or the nature of the appeal. B. The Tribunal Has Authority to Allow Amendments and Correct Non-Jurisdictional Defects Under the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice (including MTTR 215 for Small Claims matters), the Tribunal may accept amendments that correct clerical or technical defects. Such authority routinely applies to: + Incorrect parcel numbers
Page 3
Petitioner respectfully requests that the Tribunal accept the corrected parcel number 76-24-25- - 206-004 as an amendment nunc pro tunc. C. Respondent Suffered No Prejudice and Had Actual Notice of the Appeal Dismissal is inappropriate when: 1. Respondent was not misled, 2. Respondent could easily determine the subject property, and 3. No prejudice resulted. All three conditions are met here: + Petitioner owns only one residential property in Southfield with this parcel number. «The City’s assessor’s office could immediately identify the correct parcel associated with Petitioner’s name. « Respondent articulates no harm, confusion, or inability to prepare its defense. Case law and Tribunal practice both support the principle that actual notice cures technical defects. D. Dismissal Would Result in an Unjust Forfeiture of Petitioner's Statutory Right to Appeal Michigan law strongly favors allowing taxpayers to have their assessments heard on the merits. Dismissing an appeal due to an immaterial clerical defect would produce an inequitable outcome inconsistent with the intent of the property tax appeal process. The Tribunal, sitting in equity, should avoid a result that denies Petitioner access to review merely because of a harmless typographical error. IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Tribunal: 1. DENY Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss; 2. Accept the corrected parcel number 76-24-25-206-004 as an amendment nunc pro tunc; and
Page 4
gory, & Co STATE OF MICHIGAN GRETCHEN WHITMER DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS MARLON I. BROWN, DPA GOVERNOR DIRECTOR Jamie Blumenthal , MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL Petitioner(s) v MTT Docket No. 26-003352 City of Sid. , Respondent(s) PROOF OF SERVICE Stephen Polter states that on Dec 1, 2025 he/she [Name of person serving/maiting petition] [date of service] served a copy of the Opposition to Motion to Dismiss relative to the above-captioned matter upon: [Provide name and address of the party/people being served] Jusin Prybylski, Assessor, Respondent 26000 Evergreen Rd. Sfld., MI 48076 [Sfonature of person wHo’is Serving/mailing copy]
Page 5
EPT/N EXPRESS PROPERTY TAX APPEALS LLC A division of Polter Law Group 2600 W Big Beaver | Ste L100 Troy, M1 48084 Received DEC 04% 24 LARA METROPLEX MI 480 PE, - 2 DEC 2025 PM 10 L Soe u H i id SHE SIE TREE OT To I sR Et Rr Un Ui au